27
as a “façade democracy” where the people “had grown accustomed to such behavior from
successive elites which ruled over them.”
The mock democratic system was introduced along with the first constitution
in 1866, the political parties being the main engines of this process, in the absence of a
complex class structure, as found in Western Europe. Hitchins observed that the king
had a key role in setting the results of the elections.
After a cabinet resigned, the king and the key politicians used to gather to
design a new prime minister from among them. The new prime minister, after the
choosing his own cabinet, called for the elections of a new Chamber of Deputies and a
new Senate, and meanwhile the Minister of Interior made sure through the prefects
that the election’s outcome will reflect the new cabinet. (Hitchins, 1994:104). In fact,
between 1881 and 1914, all the Governments designed by the king were approved in
elections, the opposition being crushed by the efficiency of prefects work in the territory.
In fact, argues Gallagher, “no institution represented the interests of the
common people,” comprising the Orthodox Church. The Church, he argues, was part of
the exploitative system, along with great monasteries which needed regular funds for
their upkeep” and gypsy slaves were owned by the monasteries as well as by nobility
until 1850 (Gallagher, 2005: 20). Hitchins observes the fact that under the first
Romanian Constitution, of 1866, the law did not officially recognized the separation
between the state and church, (Hitchins, 1994:101) giving to the former the power to get
involved in Church decisions and Church nominations. In fact, through the 1893 law on
church organization, the Parliament assimilated the priests to the public servants by
awarding them salaries from the state.
Gallagher also presents, “in each of Romania’s counties the state’s local arm
was a prefect who brooked no opposition” (Gallagher: 2005, p24) and used to appoint
local ministers, so the large majority of Romania’s population had no means to get
accommodated, historically speaking, with the democratic institutions and tools. By the
laws adopted between 1892 and 1903, the Ministry of Interior exercised a great power
on the politics of departments (judet) and communes. The prefects, as government
representatives in the territory, could dissolve the local parliaments if they did not
comply with the Government policies, in this way the local interest in politics constantly
decreasing (Hitchins, 1994:105)
This tradition of appointing ministers was well continued during communism,
when numbers of gypsies were appointed heads of Transylvanian towns, and as well
after 1989: “in July 1990 Petre Roman began replacing mayors who had been appointed
at the beginning of the year with appointees who were clearly loyal to the FSN (the
28
ex-communists party)” (Gallagher, 2005:97).
Until 1919, the year of the first universal vote, only a small part of the
population participated in political life. “Besides the necessary revenues required for
the participation in the electoral process, the system of electoral colleges and
government manipulations limited also the participation in the electoral process”
(Hitchins, 1994:103). The same author presents how in 1888, in Romania only 59677
people had the right to vote while in 1905, (100 years ago) only 93622. Accordingly, a
deputy represented at that time the interests of 402 electors and a senator the interests
of 164. No wonder that with this system the great landowners used to dominate the
elections, with the Members of Parliament representing the peasants being
outnumbered continuously.
We see the fact that the Romanian political system had a continuous need to
shore up its authority by maintaining public sphere engulfed and dependent on it
despite its own poor performance. This need was not common only in pre 1989 period,
but also post revolution governments were reluctant to let the public sphere and
lifeworld to exit their influence. The last gross attempt to engulf the public sphere by
the politic was between 2000 and 2004, with the return to power of former communists.
They lost the 2004 elections precisely because of their tendency to control other spheres,
as we will present in the 4
th
chapter.
Romanian degree of centralism has no parallel in Central European Block. In
fact, as Brucan says, the decentralization of state and economy was pursued there in a
span of more than 20 years, so, at the moment of 1989 revolutions the political system
itself was prepared for entering into a liberal period, its feud being privatized already
under historical influences from the public sphere and media side. The lack of
representation and support inside the public sphere were the reasons used to justify the
replacement of an all-powerful government with a small government. This new path
had as a consequence desire for more profound reforms but local autonomy was out of
the question. Maybe this is why we have to paraphrase Brucan (1998) and say that the
Romanian democracy was born with forceps because it couldn’t function with workers
and peasants alone.
Not only because after the Revolution thinkers are trying to link the transition
process from communism to a liberal democracy with the reforming of mass media, we
will look here onto this system, but other reason for this initiative is, as we presented
before, the emerging of journalism at the beginning of Romanian modernity, in
non-similar ways with western states, where it started from the core of the public
sphere. Exploiting publicity inside the Romanian public realm, journalism was the
29
vehicle through which a healthy press evolved and diversified at the beginning of the
20
th
Century. The strategic character of gathering and distributing news and comments
was overwhelmingly abused by the political sphere, summoned more and more
frequently to behave or moderate its actions.
The fact that large parts of the wealthy class were non-Romanian alimented
the presses with anti-Semitic and xenophobic rhetoric that will disturb public opinion
over decades. For example, the death of the National poet, Mihai Eminescu, killed with
a stone by a fellow inmate in a mental institution where he was receiving care, was
blamed on Jews, largely attacked by the talented journalis. Not only because of these
reasons a censorship bill was adopted, but we will see that the censor work was more to
close hard line newspapers than to ensure the censorship of all articles carried by those
papers.
Even in the difficult years of Antonescu dictatorship, an underground media,
especially communist, functioned and informed large masses about the front situations
unreported in the official papers.
4.3. Historical developments for journalism and media
But what is the media background and journalism history in Romania?
Because we discussed so far the political system and public sphere system in comparing
the Romanian realities with a western normative of modernity, we will proceed on the
same path with the media. There is a wide agreement on the fact that Romanian
journalism appeared under the influences of western modernity as a copy of western
journalism used at first as a national and then political tool in the elites’ mission of
closing the historical gap between Romanian territories of Transylvania, Moldavia and
Wallachia (Johnson, 1999).
Gross argues in his turn that the emerging newspapers went beyond
journalism: “They gave journalistic life to the Romanian language, created a public
forum for discussion of Romanian problems, and developed and gave expression to a
national consciousness. They also served as voices for the articulation of nationalistic
sentiments and as catalysts for the unification and mobilization of public opinion in the
struggle to achieve a united Romanian nation” (Gross in Johnson, 1999:5-34).
I consider that this usage of journalism fits the modernization engine based on
elites’ observation of western systems and translation of these systems for the large
masses while assuring a favorable public opinion using their techniques and prestige as
power brokers.
30
Discussing the historical developments of journalism in a country as Romania
is very difficult because on the one hand we can discuss the particular situation of
Transylvania, part of the Habsbourg Empire, and therefore part of Europe, and on the
other hand we have the situation of Moldavia and Wallachia, territory “built on complex
national, linguistic and imperial faults lines, characterized by a very backward
development of the media.” But, as we presented in our arguments about the historical
developments of political systems and public sphere in these three territories, we can
speak about a common background, just because in Transylvania the Romanian
community was a community without political rights for centuries, due to their
Orthodox faith and denial of Papal system and because their large majority was living
in countryside, the cities were formed and populated mostly by German and Hungarian
ethnics. If for these two ethnic groups we can talk about cultural and linguistic links
with the western developments, such as the Renaissance and Enlightenment, for the
large Romanian majority we cannot do this artifice. For example, the first journal to be
published in Romanian territories of Habsbourg Empire was Temesvarer Nachricten,
(Johnson, 1999) but we will not consider it to be Romanian because the journal
addressed only the Saxon ethnic group in Banat, its language being German.
This is why in differentiating Transylvania from Moldavia and Wallachia we
agree to differentiate only the source of influence of their modern models, Transylvania
being under a Habsbourg and Prussic sphere of influence while Moldavia and Wallachia
entering in a Russian sphere at the beginning of the 19
th
Century only to change it in
the second half of that Century with a French one. In this sense, the French influence is
perceived to be stronger in the formation of Romanian local model of modernity,
Transylvania joining Romania only after WWI, when the Romanian elites were already
operating on the social fiber to change it following a French ideal model.
Carmen Ionescu observes too the fact that the 19
th
Century is known in
Romanian culture as “The French Century,” because, after 1830, large numbers of
Moldavian and Wallachian youngsters moved to Paris for university studies. There the
Enlightenment becomes an ideal they want to fight for, and in 1839 “The Society for
Romanian People Instruction” is created. By 1845 the Society changes its name to “The
Society of Romanian Students in Paris” and by 1846 establishes “Paris Romanian
Library.” The same society publishes ephemeral journals such “România viitoare” (The
Future Romania) in 1850 and “Republica Română” in 1851 (Ionescu, 2001). These
publications appeared also because in Paris were located all 1848 Revolution’s
expatriates, so despite their sporadic character they succeeded to create an atmosphere
favorable to democratic ideas.
31
The western influence is thus responsible for the entry of newspapers and
journalism culture in Romanian territories. From the middle of 18
th
Century public
money were allocated for subscriptions to western journals, but these journals were
read only by a very few people connected to the Phanariot administration. The fact that
Romanians were largely peasant and illiterate influenced the retard on information
needs. Ionescu remarks that in these territories empirical forms of manuscript journals
or temporary publications never existed.
But the contact between the literate bourgeoisie and the western public sphere
produced big changes in this aspect at the beginning of the 19
th
century, with
Transylvanian elites being the first to discover the importance of journalism and the
tool named “journal.” The first tentative to establish a Romanian journal belongs to
Ioan Molnar from Sadu, who, by 1789 and then in cooperation with Paul Iorgovici by
1793 and 1794 tried to print a Romanian language newspaper in Vienna and to
distribute it in Romanian territories.
Their tentatives failed due to the opposition of Transylvania governor Banffy,
who suspected the national movement that such publications would produce among
Romanians. (Petcu, 2002). A second tentative, a public one this time, belongs to Alexie
Lazaru (Petcu, 2002), a businessman, who launches in 1814 from Buda (today
Budapest) an offer to publish a bi-weekly journal in the Romanian language, if there
would be a subscription demand. In his public offer, the businessmen read “all smart
nations of Europe have journals or news, even the Greeks and Serbians,” and “because
the journals are the wisest mean to Enlighten the masses” he considered the necessity
to offer news to Romanians. His appeal shows that journalism in Romanian speaking
territories did not appear like in western countries as a necessary link between cafes
(public sphere) but as a vehicle for modernization from the part of those who were living
the modernity in cities like Budapest of Vienna.
Another appeal for establishing a Romanian language journal belongs to
Teodor Racoce, a translator, who, by 1817, in Lamberg, starts to publish a Romanian
journal (Petcu, 2002). He asks the imperial court from Vienna for permission, and the
right to publish the journal is granted by 25
th
of February, 1817. He too believed that “it
was the time to admit that Romanians together form a nation and because of this fact
they need a journal to receive all those benefices like other nations.”
He promised that in his paper, along with the news, the Romanians will have
“all the teachings existent in the world, on Romanian, from Grammatik to theology.”
Despite the fact that he received Imperial permission, the Transylvanian government
forbid him to advertise his paper, as unnecessary, because “the most qualified Romanian
32
priests can read newspapers in other languages, and the rest of Romanian priests, being
poorly educated, does not need to read journals, because they could misunderstand the
news and disseminate own versions among rural people.”(Petcu, 2002:13-15)
We see again the vision of the press had its essence in Enlightenment and also
the poor quality of its public. At the beginning of 19
th
Century, the only literate
Romanian group were the priests, but the character of their job placed them in
communities where they couldn’t find intellectual company except literate people of
foreign extraction. People like Racoce, Lazaru or Molnar, living abroad in big cities and
enjoying their bourgeois status were exceptions, not the rule, so the press worked to
supply more the need of education than the need of discussion, inexistent at a scale
similar to the one found in the educated west.
Racoce proves that he is aware of this difference in culture, and invites for
subscriptions firstly the priests, than the boyars, the church workers and the rests of
“persons.” All of them had to pay 60 Florins per year to know “as is the custom in
Europe (…) all the things that disserve to be known that are printed in journals of
London, Paris, Berlin and Hamburg”(Petcu, 2002:15). In this way he hoped not only to
give news but also to elevate the Romanian public to the degree of sophistication
existent in Occident. Later, when “Gazeta de Transylvania” was printed, it had only 250
subscribers, all of them being member of “Romanian elite in the Habsbourg monarchy”
(Johnson, 1999:5-34), a very small number if compared with the 2 million Romanian
speaking ethnic group of the time.
“Ioan Lupas noted: a Romanian public to count on, with certainty, and on which
support a journal could begin an existence here (in Transylvania) didn’t exist” (Petcu,
2005). The same Lupas writes that the only public for a journal there were Romanians
educated in foreign countries because “a priesthood with a high culture and a formed
middle class we had not (…) and the deep and large strata of Romanian people were in
the sad estate of stupidity, on the most primitive step of intellectual culture” (Petcu,
2002:11-13). We have to understand the special situation in Transylvania thinking
about the fact that the first Polish newspaper was edited in 1661 (Merkuriusz Polski
Ordynarjny), first in Krakow and than in Warsaw and the oldest Hungarian newspaper
was first printed in 1705 (Mercurius Hungaricus), some voices claiming that Dracola
Wajda of 1485 was the oldest publication in the world (Johnson, 1999). The Czechs and
Slovaks had their first newspapers in 1719, Cesky postylion nebolizto noviny Ceke, and
respectively 1783, Prespurske noviny, all these dates being anterior if compared with
the Romanian language newspapers, despite the common Habsbourg ties.
If in Transylvania the Romanian language press had this late start, as
33
compared to other Eastern European nations, in Moldova and Wallachia provinces this
start was even later. For Wallachia, the start of journalism in the Romanian language
took place after a public offer similar with the ones in Transylvania, launched in 1829
by I. Eliad and C. Moroiu. They started in that very year “Curierul Românesc”
(Romanian Courier) with the same purpose of Enlightening the masses: “now in all
houses we might see elders, youngsters, man and women, educated or common people,
with newspapers in their hands, and even children might leave their games to come
around their mothers and fathers to read for themselves of to hear the journal” (Petcu,
2002:16-19).
The Wallachian public was on the same situation of backwardness as the one in
Transylvania, the first number being distributed only in 280 copies. They proclaimed
that all social strata or age could find useful this “worthy finding that is the journal,”
and advertised it for those interested in politics, philosophy, literature, business news
and even for peasants who could find new ways for increasing their crops. The journal,
considered to be the “best” of all Romanian language newspaper by Mihail
Kogălniceanu, writer and statesman (b1817-d1891), died during the 1848 revolution for
its attitude of disseminating the European bourgeois ideas in Wallachia.
In Moldova Gheorghe Asachi introduced the journal as “institution” in the
same 1829, under the name of “Albina Românească” (Romanian bee). In his public
argument he argues that “in all the political world, there is no nation, even smaller than
the Romanian one, without a journal among other useful institutions” and he drives the
support for publication form Russian Empire. The journal is set to be “politico-literary”
with a content of world news, war bulletins, historical teachings, literature, morals,
philology, and land laboring. Asachi introduces with his journal also rules for written
Romanian language, not systematized at that time (Petcu, 2002:19-22).
In Moldova the public situation is even worse than in Wallachia and
Transylvania, the journal being distributed to just 177 people. These journals were
weeklies of bi-weeklies, not until 1838 a daily newspaper appeared on the streets of
Bucharest, Romania. (Johnson, 1999).
By 1844, as Cezar Bolliac (b1813-d1881), journalist and archeologist, considers
publicity a “goddess.” “The soul of a representative government is the publicity; without
it a government cannot survive – is a dead body and without physiognomy. How can the
elector find out, if the deputy he chose to support his rights and in who’s hand he put all
his interests and the future of his sons, fulfill his duties righteously or not? And again
how could the deputy know if those he represents are satisfied or not with his behavior,
if not by the means of publicity? And how the society – the part of it that had the right to
34
know – would know if this eternal fight between administration and deputies is useful
for society or what side is the good will if not by means of publicity?” (Bolliac in Petcu,
2002:26-28)
In the same text Bolliac pleads for a “daily journal only with local (country)
news” because this kind of journal would be the only corrector of abuses, and he asks for
creation of such media “under the censorship of the ruler,” because such a gazette
“would form the opinion and bring happiness to the country.” But his hopes for what
sounds now like a functional public sphere fall short because of the Revolution of 1848
that had a bourgeois character in Europe and a national one in Romanian territories.
Kogălniceanu deplores in 1855 the outcome of this Revolution that ended in Moldova
and Wallachia with a Russian occupation. “The autonomy (…) was suspended. And the
rights in it were cancelled or suspended (…) All intellectual movement was suspended.”
He also complains about the strong censorship on press and about the new authorities
that closed some journals. “Patria couldn’t publish anything patriotic and was closed
because had no support (…) and “România literară (Literary Romania) was closed
because its crime in the eyes of foreign diplomats was in its name: România”
(Kogalniceanu, 1855; Petcu, 2002:29-38).
Even Kogalniceanu recognizes that “this black epoch had its end” and the
“wind from the west started again” and “a large field is open to Romanian journalism”,
he deplores the inexistence of a serious newspaper in Romania. At that time there were
6 political journals in Romanian territories: 2 in Moldova, Gazeta de Moldova and
Zimbrul (The Bison); 2 in Wallachia, Vestitorul (The Foreteller) and Timpul (The Time);
and 2 in Transylvania, Gazeta de Transilvania and Telegraful. According to
Kogălniceanu’s classification, Gazeta de Moldova and Vestitorul were semi-official
journals, their domain being administration reporting, Telegraful roman, published in
Sibiu was limited in its political options, but very good on news about trade and
agriculture, Gazeta de Transilvania was decadent by 1855, still suffering the 1848
Revolution consequences, and Zimbrul, very careful with its political commitments.
Kogălniceanu says that Timpul is the only journal that supports political discussions,
being supported in its turn by the biggest trade houses form Bucharest. “Its mission is
to defend and represent the interests of middle estates, estate that is today so important
in Europe and here just at its birth” (Kogălniceanu, 1855; Petcu:29-38).
This is also the moment for a media boom, produced also because of soaring
numbers of literate and western-educated Romanians. Between 1856 and 1864, 82 titles,
most of them of political press, were printed in Bucharest. From this number, 15 were
bilingual, 5 in German, 3 in French, 1 in Hungarian and for the rest in Romanian
35
(Ionescu, 2001). Not only the number soars, but also the domains o interest. For the first
time, in this period, two economic magazines were published, “Analele economice”
(Economical Yearly) and “Analele statistice” (Statistical Yearly).
In this atmosphere of oppression, another media revolution takes place: on 1
st
of August, 1854, under the state authority the first telegram is transmitted from
Bucharest to Vienna using the telegraph line Ploieşti-Braşov-Sighişoara-Cluj,
Timisoara-Vienna. From these cities only Ploieşti is situated in Wallachia, (Ionescu,
2001) the others being Austrian-Hungry territories in Transylvania. Finally Wallachia
was connected with the western culture by means that will change its own cultural and
economic evolution soon enough.
In the year of unification between Moldova and Wallachia, 1859, the fight for
press freedom and freedom of speech reached an historic high. Two manifestos were
published, one in “Românul” newspaper, signed by Cezar Bolliac and by Dimitrie
Bolintineanu in “Trompeta Carpaţilor” (Carpathian Trumpet) telling basically that “the
right of free speech is a right that comes not from the nation, but from government”
persuading the new power to give up with the censorship tradition instituted by foreign
occupation (Bolliac and Bolintineanu, 1859; Petcu, 2002:53).
The attitude towards press was unfortunately paternalistic, but the
government of A.I. Cuza fought for rapid reforms in all domains, and the press was one
of those domains. In 1864, by direct disposition of Cuza the Bucharest Telegraph Office
becomes a “unified state institution” with attributions of sending journalistic
information with discount prices. If not granted full free speech, Romanian journals
were granted more access to general information that determined a soar on their
numbers. (Ionescu, 2001)
With the arrival of prince Carol of Hohenzollern as king of Romania, and the
1866 Constitution, the press was granted the right of free speech, and enjoyed a total
liberty. The press laws were inspired from Thiers formulae who qualified “the intention
to limit the press freedom is a crime (…) because the press’ creation is the civilization
itself” (Ionescu, 2001:37-38). The press was granted the possibility to criticize all people
and ideas because “we need to leave for the discussions the entire political person”
including in this formulation the intimacy of public man.
This total freedom was the subject of fierce debates between two liberals,
Bratianu, the chief of Cabinet, and Rosetti, a journalist. Their quarrel ended with the
recognition of the fact that normal courts will not judge press conflicts without the
approval of The Press Jury, an organism created in 1866 for such purposes.
We have to notice that the constitutional press freedom functioned at least one
36
year, until 1867, when Bolintineanu, fighter for press freedom in the time of Russian
occupation and Turkish suzerainty, signed an article entitled “The press freedom” to
trigger an alarm of loosing this constitutional right under a 100% national and
sovereign government. “They (the rulers) couldn’t respect too much this freedom and
they hit it, this last freedom we had, the press freedom, the thought freedom, the
freedom without it there is no other freedom and there cannot be constitution either”
(Bolintineanu, 1867; Petcu, 2002:53-56). But Bolintineanu shows that journalists too
were easy to influence and control at the time, maybe from previous experiences they
had with censorship, because the government made no law to systematize the press
which was free according to the constitution, so, he proposed, the journalists cannot be
prosecuted by governments and, in this situation, it is their right to criticize and
question and in the same measure as a member of Parliament enjoy this right inside the
legislative institution.
In Transylvania the press in Romanian language continued to flourish after the
draconic measures of censorship introduced after 1848 were softened in the 1860’s. The
circulation was good, if compared with Hungarian language press, the biggest journal
printing about 1500 copies. Gheorghe Bariţiu, in an essay published in 1886, regards as
a problem “the possibility for ministers and officials to find the names and addresses of
all those with subscriptions to Romanian political journals” by inquiries with the Post,
and the small revenues the journalists could make. Because of public rules forbidding
the collaboration with newspapers for professors, clergy, public servants, and other
categories employed by state institutions, those who wanted to sign in newspapers were
forced to leave the previous job, a very hard decision.
But Baritiu was favoring an independent press so this measure was one
necessary step to assure editorial objectivity. In these conditions, he warned, only by
increasing the salaries for the journalists, seen as a professional body, the desire and
need for an independent and efficient Romanian press could be accomplished.
Another important change to notice was the introduction of the first
international press agency, Havas, in Bucharest in 1877. “It will be paid to Havas
agency for their telegraphic news service the amount of 12 thousands French francs,
cash, in monthly payments of 1 thousand French francs, on every 30
th
of 31
st
. The Havas
agency will grant for this money gratuity for its news in Romania (…) and they will be
given exclusive rights to advertise French products in Monitorul Oficial” reads the
contract between the Romanian government and Havas agency (Ionescu, 2001:30).
Because the Romanian officials realized the impact and influence of such news
agency, and because they were engaged in a fight with the Havas representatives to
37
stop sensitive news (Ionescu, 2001), the Romanian government starts secret
negotiations with the Austrian Press Agency, Correspondenz Bureau, and even with the
British one, Reuter. These negotiations are successful, and, in 1889 is created Romanian
Telegraphic Agency, Roumanagence, under the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
but the agency is placed under Austrian tutelage. This tutelage was accepted maybe
because of the German descent of Carol the 1
st
, but not appreciated by the journalistic
milieu in Bucharest.
One of the first directors of Roumanagence writes a complaint in 1895: “The
Vienna Bureau centralizes all cable service for Romania in a way that no news from
Berlin, Paris, London, Petersburg Constantinople, and so on arrives straight to
Bucharest. This system had, as a consequence, a censorship over our news from
Correspondenz Bureau” (Ionescu, 2001:34). Banks along the journals were very
unsatisfied with this system, so, by the beginning of the 20
th
Century the pressures for a
censorship-free system are more intense. In 1905 the Romanian Embassy in Germany
asks Vienna to stop its censorship, because “Romanian government finance
Roumanagence,” but Vienna’s answer reads the fact that “there is no agreement
between our agencies for full publishing obligations in our bilateral services.”
But Romanian government too was censoring the news, in such a manner that
the 1907 peasants revolt when the Army killed large scores of protesters went largely
unreported in the western and Romanian media. (Ionescu, 2001)
Under these coordinates the Romanian press diversified and developed until
the end of WWII. Because of the underdevelopment of the public sphere, both in
Romania and Transylvania, the press could not become a real place for discussion, the
partisan character of it becoming more and more sophisticated. For example, Iorga
criticizes in 1905 the partisanship and the lack of interest in Romanian culture in 5
dailies in foreign languages printed in Bucharest, two in French, L’Independence
Roumanie, and La Roumanie; two in German, Bukarester Tageblatt and Rumanischer
Lloyd; and one Greek, Patris. He says that these newspapers are not different from the
ones printed in Greece or Paris, because their contribution to the sphere of discussion is
minimal.
The critics of Iorga come in the context presented before of a preponderant
foreign character of Romanian political public sphere, the town dwellers and business
owners being mostly Greeks, Germans, Turkish and Jews. As for the press in the
Romanian language, “Universul” was the main information newspaper, trying to copy
the style of western journalism. Anyway, the press was always considered a problem by
the ruling parties because some xenophobic attacks on Jews of even the King, for their
38
non-national character and fortune status.
The post-WWI period determined changes in the media and journalism.
Johnson believes that firstly the associations between the media and the national
identity changed, so the focus turned on national politics (Johnson, 1999). This is the
main reason why in a period when in Europe the journalism of information flourished,
in Romania, and countries like Romania, only the partisan journalism did.
On June 16, 1921, the first Romanian modern press agency is created: Orient
Radio Rador. This agency is the fruit between the cooperation of Chrissoveloni Bank,
Havas Agency in Paris, the boyars Dimitrie Ghika, Emil Sturdza, and the noble
descendents, Grigore Trancu (lawyer) and D. Leonida (engineer). They had the full
cooperation from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Take Ionescu, who decided to support
the agency with a state budget of 80 thousands Lei per month, Rador obliging itself “to
stay close to the government and to follow the indicated line, especially in military and
external politics problems” (Ionescu, 2001:40).
But the government didn’t trust the self-judgment of journalists and created an
organism for censorship. In 24
th
of July 1922, Rador’s director, Vasile Stoica explains in
a letter to Reuters the reason for delays in news distribution: “The telegrams are
transported by couriers between the Post office and Press Direction for censorship, but
not one by one, because we do not have so many couriers. More, because the Press
Direction works only between 8:00 and 19:00, after this hour the censorship activity is
postponed for the second day” (Ionescu, 2001:44).
Repeatedly the government censured publications, closed publications or
imprisoned journalists even without trials. This is why, by 1922 Constantin Bacalbasa,
director of Monitorul Oficial and leader of journalists union demanded, in the wake of a
new constitution (1923, after the unification with Transylvania and Basarabia) a full
liberty for the press with clear deontological rules for journalists. His dream to see an
unbiased and independent press did not become reality: after 1923, the press was
partisan as before. More, the appearance as Romania’s neighbor communist state, the
Soviet Union, and its anti-Romanian message, determined the authorities to
reintroduce censorship to make sure that the communist’s sympathizers cannot sign
articles.
To “transform” the censorship and mask it under the face of efficiency, the
Romanian Government buys in 1
st
of April 1925 the Rador Agency, and in 1926 the
Parliament transforms this agency in an official state institution. This fact gives Rador
a larger access to information, but makes it weaker before the political factors. In this
way all sensitive news about government was delayed and “hair-dressed.” The state
39
paternalism is enforced when in 1928 the radio is introduced in Romania, but the first
service is cable based, with one receiver in a center of a locality and thousands of
magnetic speakers in the homes of subscribers. In 1939 the number of subscribers
reached 350.000. Considering the average family having 4 or 5 members, there were
more than one million radio listeners in Romania in that year. (Ionescu, 2001:52)
But again, after WWI, the paternalist state was confronted with a media boom.
If in 1918 there were only 16 periodical publications, in 1935 some 2351 periodicals
were printed, the distribution being one copy to four citizens. Among this number, 118
were dailies (Johnson, 1999). This rate placed Romania before Austria, Hungry, Poland
and Yugoslavia, but behind France, Germany and Czechoslovakia. The total number of
copies reached 4.5 million/day, one million from this number being published in other
languages than Romanian. The biggest information journal was “Universul” with
200.000 copies/day, followed by “Dimineaţa” (The Morning) with 100.000/day,
“Curentul” with 60.000/day and “Adevărul” (The Truth) with 50.000/day. These five
dailies’ number of pages soared, the predominant news being political reportages and
sensationalism.
The censorship existed in softer forms, but the government was even
intimidating and arresting journalists. Unfortunately, censorship was extended by 1938
with the Royal dictatorship of Carol the 2
nd
, who dissolved Parliament and all political
parties. It was the time to silence mode voices, not only the communist one, so a large
specter of journalists were arrested or questioned over their activities.
Interesting, in the period of 1944-1947 when communist propaganda entered
and produced, after seizing all power in 1947, the Romanian press was quite free, with
the Peasant Party organ circulation reaching 350.000 copies/day. Only after the
suppression of opposition and arresting its leaders and dissolving parties the press
turned all red.
4.3.1. Press unions
We cannot continue our ideas without reviewing the self-addressed
professional movements of Romanian journalists before 1944. The first congress of
Romanian press was held in 1871, but only the liberal-democratic newspapers
participated, the governmental-official press preferring to stay outside. This wasn’t the
only problem of this congress: a political fight divided the journalists in the first hours.
Bacalbasa describes the Romanian press of that year (Petcu, 2002) as a
“gathering of poor and beginner journalists, excepting Cezar Bolliac, all of them a bunch
Ricevi informazioni sui nostri servizi, sulle offerte e non perdere news e consigli su università e lavoro.
